Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Android Microsoft Linux Your Rights Online

LG To Pay Licensing Fees To Microsoft For Using Android 359

PerlJedi writes "InformationWeek reports that LG is the latest in a string of companies who have been bullied into paying 'license fees' to Microsoft for the use of Android on their products. 'Microsoft said the deal with LG means that 70% of Android-based smartphones sold in the U.S. are now covered by its licensing program. ... Microsoft does not disclose how much revenue it's obtaining from Android, Chrome, and Linux licenses, but some analysts believe it may be substantial, to the point where the company is making significant profits from the mobile revolution even though its own offering, Windows Phone, commands a market share of less than 2%, according to Gartner.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG To Pay Licensing Fees To Microsoft For Using Android

Comments Filter:
  • Better than Apple (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @11:44AM (#38674786)

    Apple won't even license it's "rectangular touchscreen" patents for Android phones.

    At this point I hate Apple alot more than I hate Microsoft.

  • by Markos (71140) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @11:55AM (#38674930)
    If it is indeed for the file system, then it's understandable.
  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @11:58AM (#38674978)

    unless you pay first, and sign an NDA.

    That's not true at all. The NDA is required, but not paying up front.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:01PM (#38675014)
    You mean these [] patents? That is really "years of R&D". Stop trolling, most of that stuff has prior art and/or is obvious. It will not hold water if challenged in court. Why do you think MS was so keen to keep everyone who saw the stuff under strict NDAs?
  • by allcar (1111567) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:05PM (#38675092)
    But they do still use blackmail tactics. They will not reveal what patents are concerned. They will not even tell companies that they are threatening to sue until they have signed an NDA. That is not the behaviour of an host, moral company simply seeking fair payment for their R&D. It is extortion.
  • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:14PM (#38675226) Journal

    Hahahahaha. oh look, it's that guy who posts BS. Let's debunk you again. I will call you out every fucking time you do this. []

    First off, we know you're a shill. Second off, microsoft owns zero of the technology they have patented, nor have they even developed it. A patent does not correlate to either a: having researched the technology or b: having developed it. The real good stuff they do isn't patented at all, and they keep it private and confidential for a reason. It's not like they dont' do research, it's just that it isn't tied to the patents.

    It only correlates to c: the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).

    Oh and it does correlate to d: they're using the patent exortion to further their R&D, thus making the DOJ ever closer to being ready to throw even more antitrust claims at Microsoft.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:24PM (#38675390)

    Not true. Barnes and Noble saw the patents decided not to pay and as a result the patents are now known to be completely ridiculous.

    You can't sign an NDA in a situation like this and expect for it to hold up in court if the party decides they want to fight it. For one thing those patents become a part of the law suit and for another no court is ever going to go for the notion that one doesn't have the right to see the patents before opting to settled, consequently there is no legal basis for MS' NDA.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:34PM (#38675554)

    I thought it was pretty much an "open secret" that its the FAT long filename stuff?

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:59PM (#38675888)

    Well, Kinect is pretty damn amazing.

    Didn't Microsoft buy the company that created it?

    Microsoft Research seems to be the place where they put all the smart people they don't want to lose to competitors, then ignore everything they do.

  • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:01PM (#38675918) Journal

    The FAT patent has been worked around 2 years ago. there are no royalties to be paid for it today. []

    That was a poor attempt at a shakedown. Patents and any form of open source don't mix, and can't be reasonably enforced on it either.

  • by steveg (55825) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:07PM (#38676016)


    They could be overturned.

    Not easily, however. The litigation costs are high enough that it's cheaper to pay the protection racket. Multi-billion dollar corporations make decisions like this all the time -- if it's cheaper to cave to ridiculous claims than to fight them, then they'll roll right over. Even if they could win the fight.

    And if the fight is in East Texas (like it commonly is) even poor quality patents are frequently upheld, so winning is up in the air no matter how strong the case against the patent holder.

  • Re:FAT (Score:4, Informative)

    by bzipitidoo (647217) <> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @06:23PM (#38679492) Journal

    I've tried running Windows with an ext2 file system. Windows can read other file systems with help from drivers, but it's never 100% compatible. When I tried it, it was also a pain to use, because you had to remember to manually start the driver after booting up. And still need NTFS or FAT to boot.

    MS of course prefers that it not be easy to use a different file system. I keep hoping their loser business strategies will eventually send them into bankruptcy. It would serve them right. But there is still an amazing amount of blind love for MS out there. Apple also gets way more love than they deserve.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.